Two decades ago W. C. van Unnik could speak of Luke-Acts as ‘a storm center in contemporary scholarship’.¹Not only were there many differences of opinion among scholars concerning fundamental issues of interpretation, but there was a decidedly negative tone to some of the research, particularly in Germany. It was not simply that the older view of ‘Luke the historian’ was rejected and a new appreciation of the author’s literary and theological creativity established, but ‘Luke’ (certainly not the traditionally identified missionary companion and friend of Paul) was regarded as betrayer of the early Christian eschatology, preacher of a ‘theology of glory’ rather than ‘theology of the cross’, perverter of the theologies of both the Jerusalem church and of Paul, and a formative force in the development of ‘Early Catholicism’.² The author’s perspective was frequently compared and contrasted with that of Paul, generally to the former’s disadvantage.

Building on the pioneering work of Martin Dibelius (1883–1947), Hans Conzelmann and Ernst Haenchen set the tone for the critical debate in the ‘sixties. Although they established without question the importance of the author of Luke-Acts as a theologian in his own right—a view that would be contested by no one today—the dogmatism with which both expressed their views on the most debatable issues tended to divide Lukan researchers into two groups, a small group of disciples and colleagues working in the Conzelmann-Haenchen tradition and a much larger group reacting to what they considered to be the extreme and speculative views put forward by the first group.

A decade later Charles H. Talbert used the image of ‘shifting sands’ to characterize the current state of Lukan studies.³ The position of ‘Luke the theologian’ had become firmly established in NT scholarship, but there tended to be an array of competing schema for interpreting Lukan theology and little agreement concerning even the most basic issues. Today, however, the situation has radically changed. Gone is the shrill debate and sloganism of the ’sixties, and even much of the uncertainty of the ’seventies; and in their place is a growing body of constructive research of a very high quality.

Some of the most recent work has been done cooperatively, as in the very fruitful seminars on Luke-Acts held at the annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature in the ’seventies and early ’eighties.⁴ Other work has been done by individual younger and older scholars who have chosen to make the Lukan writings the focus of their academic study and, as a result, have produced a host of significant dissertations, monographs, essays and, in a few cases, major commentaries. If I were to choose an image for the more recent research, I would select that of a garden. The soil of Lukan studies has been carefully cultivated, a variety of promising seeds has been planted, it has been well watered, and there is evidence of much growth. Although it is not yet time for the full harvest, the ‘first fruits’ that are already evident give us reason to hope for a bumper crop in the not too distant future.

The student who begins a study of Luke-Acts today is well served by a number of excellent guides to the scholarly discussion.⁵ In a recent article,⁶ I have attempted to trace the broad contours of the discussion, give an impression of some of the most fruitful conclusions, and suggest possible directions for further study. In the present essay I will comment on a few of the current commentaries.

Pride of place among recently published commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles goes to the magisterial two-volumed work by Gerhard Schneider,⁷ available at present, unfortunately, only to those who read German. Giving due recognition to the fact that Acts is a continuation of the Third Gospel,⁸ Schneider stresses the author’s concern for continuity between the time of Jesus and the time of the church. He introduces his carefully crafted and clearly presented material by a judicious survey of research on Acts and his conclusions on the major issues (the book’s literary method and genre; the relation of Acts to the Third Gospel; the use of sources; the question of authorship, date and place of writing; the author’s historical method; the theology of Acts; the textual tradition; and the history of the Acts in the church and in modern scholarship). His conclusions, both in his introduction and in the text of the commentary, are often: ‘We can’t be certain!’—which has led Ferdinand Hahn (art. cit. in note 5. above) to complain that he wished Schneider would come to definite conclusions more often, though not everyone would regard this habit of scholarly caution a liability.

After a lengthy introduction, Schneider, following the example of Luke himself, moves on to write ‘an orderly account’ (kathexes, Lk. 1:3) of the exegesis of Acts. Each pericope is introduced by a brief bibliography, followed by a German translation of the Greek text, an overview of the passage as a whole, and verse by verse comments on the grammar, literary and historical setting, and, above all, the theology of Acts. Sandwiched in between the exegesis of individual passages are twelve important excurses, treating of the ascension of Jesus, the twelve apostles as witnesses, OT citations in Acts, Pentecost and the Holy Spirit, Peter in Acts, possessions and the renunciation of possessions, the miracle stories, the Christology of Acts, the parousia, the Hellenists and Samaria, Paul in Acts, and the so-called Apostolic Council and its Decree. Curiously, there are only two excurses in the second volume. Perhaps this is due to the limitations of space, but it leads to a bit of an imbalance between the two.

Schneider’s commentary is by far the best work available on Acts to date: it is a generation more up-to-date than Haenchen, balanced and comprehensive in its evaluation of the breadth of recent scholarship, and chock-full of useful data. It is to be hoped that it will soon find a British or North American publisher willing to invest in its translation, thus making it available to a much wider audience.

Another significant German commentary is the one by Rudolf Pesch in the influential ‘Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament’. Also in two volumes⁹—do German scholars write short commentaries?—it is aimed at a broader audience than Schneider’s work. Pesch’s commentary is noteworthy in its concern to link the text of the Scripture to the contemporary life of the church, including renewal themes. The author himself, a Roman Catholic and tenured professor of NT at the University of Freiburg, took the radical step of resigning his university appointment to join in the ministry of a lay renewal movement that seeks to combine concerns of faith, theological education, Christian community and social action within a modern metropolis (Munich). Pesch’s stance gives his work a focus similar to that of Australia’s Robert Banks, though he comes out of a very different ecclesiastical ethos.

The world of NT scholarship has been waiting impatiently for more than a decade for the publication of C. K. Barrett’s commentary on Acts in the International Critical Commentary series, which is in the process of being up-dated.¹⁰ Meanwhile, we have to be content with the numerous articles and comments he has been publishing in a variety of Festschriften, journals, and volumes of collected essays.¹¹

While we await Barrett’s magnum opus, we should not neglect several recent commentaries that, though written for a more popular audience, represent a very high level of scholarship. I. Howard Marshall has certainly been among the more prolific of NT scholars during the past decade. Close on the heels of his monumental commentary on the Gospel of Luke¹² came a much smaller work on Acts.¹³ The serious student should not be put off by the non-technical format, for the author is clearly on top of contemporary Lukan research. Acts is interpreted as the second part of Luke’s ‘story of “Christian beginnings” ’. Luke connects the story of Jesus with the story of the early church, telling how the good news had started, and how it had spread over the Mediterranean world from Jerusalem to Rome.¹⁴ And by the very manner in which he tells the story in (Luke-) Acts, he stresses five major points: (1) There is an essential continuity between the mighty acts of God recorded in the OT and those occurring in the ministry of Jesus and in the experience of the early Christian communities; (2) Central to the church’s existence is mission, taking the good news ‘to the end of the earth’ (Acts 1:8); (3) In spite of opposition to the Christian mission and message, the word of God continues in its triumphal progress; (4) The inclusion of the Gentiles in the church is no accident of history but rather part of God’s own plan; and (5) The experience of the earliest Christian communities, including their principal leaders (especially Peter and Paul), provides a model for the next generations of the church.

Although Marshall is in the tradition of F. F. Bruce¹⁵ and attributes to the author of Acts a higher standard of historical accuracy than do many contemporary Lukan scholars, the accent in his commentary is clearly on theological interpretation (which has been the focus of most recent study). And, in this regard, he offers the person who is charged with preaching or teaching the Book of Acts in a local church context good value.

Aimed at a similar audience are the recent commentaries by David John Williams¹⁶ and Gerhard Krodel.¹⁷Both authors are clearly abreast of the best of NT scholarship. Using the Good News Bible text (though often departing from it on the basis of the Greek text), Williams takes a slightly more conservative view than does Krodel on the historicity of Acts. Still, he recognizes that Luke was no chronicler of past events but rather an artist who ‘interpreted, selected, and arranged the events of his narrative to explicate a theme, and anything that did not bear on that theme he ruthlessly omitted’.¹⁸ Luke is not interested in ‘church history’ as such, but rather only one strand of church history, namely ‘how it took the road from Jerusalem to Rome and how, at the same time, it passed from mission to the Jews to preaching God’s message to the Gentiles.…’¹⁹ Luke’s concern is that of a pastor: he is concerned to write history, but history with a message for the church in his day, to tell the story of Jesus that continues ‘wherever his Spirit finds men and women ready to believe, to obey, to give, to suffer, and, if needs be, to die for him’.²⁰

Krodel’s commentary contains a more detailed introduction than does Williams’. Without being unduly technical, he seeks to make the general reader aware of the key issues of contemporary criticism. He discusses the question of authorship (if a Gentile, he was exceedingly steeped in the OT: perhaps he was a Hellenistic Jew or a proselyte, at the very least a ‘God-fearer’), literary craft of the author (an artist who selects, eviates, idealizes, uses repetitions, combines traditions, simplifies, overemphasizes, occasionally confuses, and, above all, tells a gripping story), Lukan theology (‘Luke wrote a narrative of salvation history in which he updated biblical history’²¹), the speeches (literary compositions intended for the reader, but incorporating prior traditions), sources (Luke certainly had access to more traditional materials than many scholars have assumed, though we may find it hard to reconstruct them).²² the relation of history and theology in Acts, and the question of the text (‘Western’ text interesting but not original).

According to Krodel, Luke-Acts could be entitled a History of Salvation, with subtitles ‘From Jesus to Paul’, ‘From Jerusalem to Rome’, or ‘From Jews Only to Gentiles Also’.²³ Volume two is in the form of a ‘historical monograph’ that traces the development of the early Christian mission from Peter to Paul and from Jerusalem to Rome. According to Luke, ‘God’s purpose and plan [Greek boule, Lk. 7:30; Acts 2:23; 5:38; cf. 3:18; 5:38–39; 13:36; 20:27] is the force that directs the story of Jesus and of the church in history’.²⁴ He does this by showing that (1) the growth of the church is the work of God (2:41; 5:14; 6:7; 9:31; etc.); (2) the Holy Spirit is the source of the apostles’ inspiration in their witness to the Lord Jesus (1:8; 2:17; 4:29–31; 6:10; 13:2–4; 15:28; 16:6–7; 20:23; 20:28; 21:4; etc.); (3) all that happened was an outworking of God’s promises in Scripture (1:20; 2:16–18; 13:41, 47; 15:15–18; 28:26–28); and (4) prophecies have been fulfilled by the events that have taken place (the prophecies of angels (Lk. 1:13–21, 26–37; 2:10–12; Acts 27:23–24]; contemporary prophets like Zechariah [Lk. 1:67–79], Simeon [Lk. 2:28–35], and Agabus [Acts 11:27–28; 21:10–11]; Paul (Acts 20:22–23; 27:22]; Jesus, the ‘prophet like Moses’ [in the Gospel Jesus predicted his passion, death and resurrection, as well as Peter’s denial; he also promised the Holy Spirit (Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:8), protection to Paul (Acts 18:9–10) and wisdom for his followers to testify under pressure (Lk. 21:15), all of which is fulfilled in the narrative of Acts], and the OT prophets [Acts 2:17; 15:16–18; 28:26–27]).²⁵

Luke’s historical monograph ‘serves his theological purposes, but this insight may not diminish the fact that Luke the historian wanted to write history and not fiction.… As a historian, Luke deserves a place among the great historians of antiquity. After all, to Greek and Latin historians of Luke’s time the Christian movement was a matter that could either be ignored or else be ridiculed.… By recognizing the invincible rise of Christianity. Luke was a better historian than anyone else among his contemporaries.²⁶ While traditionalists may be too enthusiastic in their assumption that they can harmonize all the discrepancies between Acts and the letters of Paul, the radical scepticism that marked the research on Acts in an earlier period was equally unjustified, according to Krodel.

The latest addition to the ‘Hermennia’ series of commentaries is a translation of Hans Conzelmann’s volume from the ‘Handbuch zum Neuen Testament’.²⁷ Although students and scholars whose German is either rusty or non-existent will find it useful to have this material in English dress, it is really quite dated (first published in 1963, slightly revised in 1972). It reads more like a lexicon of linguistic and historical information arranged in the order of Acts 1:1–28:31 than a commentary, so it will be primarily of use to those preparing detailed exegetical and historical studies rather than those concerned to teach and preach from Acts. Furthermore, Conzelmann’s once influential but now largely discredited perspective on Lukan theology permeates his interpretation, giving it a somewhat antique flavour. His extremely sceptical stance concerning the historical value of Acts will also render this elaborate and beautifully produced commentary of less interest than an entirely new volume in the same series might have been.²⁸

In conclusion, the only fully comprehensive, scholarly and up-to-date commentary on Acts is the work by Schneider, and it is accessible only to those who read German. The fruits of the past quarter-century of increasingly positive Lukan studies have yet to be harvested in a major commentary on Luke’s second volume though Marshall, Krodel and Williams present some of the first fruits of this harvest in a non-technical format. In addition to the commentary by C. K. Barrett mentioned above, two other major commentaries are in preparation at present, namely by S. Scott Bartchy for the ‘Word Biblical Commentary’ and by W. Ward Gasque for the ‘New International Greek Testament Commentary’. Until any of these is complete, the two volumes by F. F. Bruce²⁹ and the classic commentary by E. Haenchen³⁰ will remain the standards in English.

---

¹ ‘A Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship’, in L. F., Keck and J. L. Martyn (eds.). Studies in Luke-Acts(Nashville: Abingdon. 1966), pp. 15–32.

² See W. G. Kuemmel’s response to this hyper-Lutheran critique of Lukan theology: ‘Current Theological Accusations Against Luke’, And Newt Quart 16 (1975).pp. 131–145.

³ Shifting Sands: The Recent Study of the Gospel of Luke’, Interp 30 (1976). pp. 38l–395.

⁴ Following consultations in 1972 and 1973. a Luke-Acts study group was formed under the able leadership of Charles H. Talbert and continued to meet regularly for more than a decade. Papers from the seminars are contained in the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar papers, published annually by Scholars Press. A collection of the early papers was published as Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert (Danville. VA: Association of Baptist professors of Religion, 1978); and more recently, a second collection. Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Studies Seminar, ed. Charles H. Talbert (New York: Crossroad, 1984). Numerous other studies that originated in these meetings have been published in journal articles, monographs and other collections.

⁵ On the work prior to 1970, see W. Ward Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles(Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). For the pre-critical study of Acts, see Paul F. Stuehrenberg, ‘The Study of Acts before the Reformation: A Bibliographic Introduction’, Nov Test29 (1987), pp. 100–136.

On recent work on Luke-Acts as a whole, see Emilio Rasco, La Theologia de Lucas: Origen, Desarrollo, Orientaciones, Analecta Gregoriana 201 (Rome: Gregorian University, 1976); Francois Bovon, Luc le théologien. Vingt-cinq ans de recherches (1950–1975) (Neuchatel and Paris: Delachaux & Niestle, 1978); Martin Rese, ‘Neuere Lukas-Arbeiten: Bemerkungen zur gegen-waertigen Forchungslage’, Theol LitZeit 106 (1981), pp.225–237; Earl Richard, ‘Luke—Writer, Theologian, Historian: Research and Orientation of the 1970’s’, BibTheolBull 13 (1988), pp. 3–15; and Martin Rese, ‘Das Lukas-Evangelium: Ein Forschungsbericht’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der roemischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung I/25.3, W. Haase (ed.) (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1985), pp. 2259–2328.

On Acts itself, see Erich Graesser, ‘Acta-Forschung seit 1960’, TheolRund 41 (1976), pp. 141–194, 259–290, and 42 (1977), pp. 1–68; Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte 1 (see n. 6, below), pp. 11–186; Eckhard Pluemacher, ‘Acta-Forschung 1974–1982’, TheolRund 48 (1983), pp. 1–56, and 49 (1984), pp. 105–169; and Ferdinand Hahn. ‘Der gegenwaertige Stand der Erforschung der Apostelgeschichte: Kommentare und Aufsatzbaende 1980–1985’, ThelRev 82 (1986), pp. 117–190.

Jacob Kremer (ed.), Les Actes des Apōtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 48 (Gemblou, Belgium: Duculot, 1979), brings together 30 papers by leading researchers who seek to survey major areas of study and thus offers a good introduction to the diversity of contemporary scholarship. The most recent collection of essays by Dom Jacques Dupont, one of the most prolific commentators on Acts in the present century, covers the past two decades of research and a wide variety of topics: Nouvelles études sur les Actes des Apōtres, Lectio Divina 118 (Paris: Cerf. 1984). Guenter Wagner. An Exegetical Bibliography of the New Testament: Volume 2: Luke and Acts (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985), offers a selected bibliography, arranged by chapter and verse.

⁶ W. W. Gasque, ‘A Fruitful Field: Recent Study of the Acts of the Apostles’. Interpretation 42 (1983), pp. 117–131.

⁷ Die Apostelgeschichte: I. Teil: Einleitung. Kommentar zu Kap. 1, 1–8, 40. II. Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 9, 1–28:31. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg. Basel and Vienna: Herder. 1980 and 1982).

⁸ Schneider prepared the ground for his work on Acts by writing an important commentary on the Third Gospel (Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 2 vols. Oekumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 3/1 and 3/2 [Guetersloh: Mohn. 1977]). two important monographs on Lukan theology (Verleugnung, Verspottung und VerhoerJesu nach Lukas 22, 54–71: Studien zur lukanischen Darstellung der Passion. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 22 [Munich: Koesel. 1969]; Parusiegleichnisse im Lukas-Evangelium, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 74 [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975], and numerous essays on Luke-Acts (e.g. ‘Der Zweck des lukanischen Doppelwerks’, Bib Zeit 21 [1977], pp. 45–66; ‘Stephanus, die Hellenisten und Samaria’, in Les Actes, ed. J. Kremer [cf. n. 5 above], pp. 215–240).

5 On the work prior to 1970, see W. Ward Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles(Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). For the pre-critical study of Acts, see Paul F. Stuehrenberg, ‘The Study of Acts before the Reformation: A Bibliographic Introduction’, Nov Test29 (1987), pp. 100–136.

On recent work on Luke-Acts as a whole, see Emilio Rasco, La Theologia de Lucas: Origen, Desarrollo, Orientaciones, Analecta Gregoriana 201 (Rome: Gregorian University, 1976); Francois Bovon, Luc le théologien. Vingt-cinq ans de recherches (1950–1975) (Neuchatel and Paris: Delachaux & Niestle, 1978); Martin Rese, ‘Neuere Lukas-Arbeiten: Bemerkungen zur gegen-waertigen Forchungslage’, Theol LitZeit 106 (1981), pp.225–237; Earl Richard, ‘Luke—Writer, Theologian, Historian: Research and Orientation of the 1970’s’, BibTheolBull 13 (1988), pp. 3–15; and Martin Rese, ‘Das Lukas-Evangelium: Ein Forschungsbericht’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der roemischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung I/25.3, W. Haase (ed.) (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1985), pp. 2259–2328.

On Acts itself, see Erich Graesser, ‘Acta-Forschung seit 1960’, TheolRund 41 (1976), pp. 141–194, 259–290, and 42 (1977), pp. 1–68; Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte 1 (see n. 6, below), pp. 11–186; Eckhard Pluemacher, ‘Acta-Forschung 1974–1982’, TheolRund 48 (1983), pp. 1–56, and 49 (1984), pp. 105–169; and Ferdinand Hahn. ‘Der gegenwaertige Stand der Erforschung der Apostelgeschichte: Kommentare und Aufsatzbaende 1980–1985’, ThelRev 82 (1986), pp. 117–190.

Jacob Kremer (ed.), Les Actes des Apōtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 48 (Gemblou, Belgium: Duculot, 1979), brings together 30 papers by leading researchers who seek to survey major areas of study and thus offers a good introduction to the diversity of contemporary scholarship. The most recent collection of essays by Dom Jacques Dupont, one of the most prolific commentators on Acts in the present century, covers the past two decades of research and a wide variety of topics: Nouvelles études sur les Actes des Apōtres, Lectio Divina 118 (Paris: Cerf. 1984). Guenter Wagner. An Exegetical Bibliography of the New Testament: Volume 2: Luke and Acts (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985), offers a selected bibliography, arranged by chapter and verse.

⁹ Die Apostelgeschichte, 2 vols., EKKzNT V/1 and V/2 (Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986).

¹⁰ The volume on Acts was assigned to a variety of authors in the original series but was never completed, thus leaving a very large gap to be filled!

¹¹ See his earlier work, included in his New Testament Essays (London: SPCK, 1972). pp. 70–115; also ‘Paul’s Speech on the Areopagus’, in New Testament Christianity for Africa and the World, ed. E. W. Farsholé-Luke (London: SPCK, 1974), pp. 69–77; ‘Acts and the Pauline Corpus’, ExpT 88 (1976–77), pp. 2–5; ‘Paul’s Address to the Ephesian Elders’, in God’s Christ and His People, edd. J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks (Oslo, Bergen and Tromso: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), pp. 107–121; Theologia Crucis—in Acts?’, in Theologia Crucis—Signum Crucis (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1979), pp. 73–84; ‘Light on the Holy Spirit from Simon Magus (Acts 8:4–25)’, in Les Actes. ed. J. Kremer. pp. 281–295.

¹² The Gospel of Luke, New International Greek Text Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).

¹³ Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Leicester: IVP; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).

¹⁴ Marshall interprets ‘all that Jesus began to do and teach’ (Acts 1:1), referring to the Gospel, as implying that Acts (volume two) deals with ‘all that Jesus continued to do and teach’ (Acts. p. 20: Luke. p. 87; contra E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles [E.T., Philadelphia; Westminster, 1971], p. 137, et al.).

¹⁵ At the time of writing, revisions of both of Bruce’s major commentaries on Acts are in the press. See note 29.

¹⁶ Acts, A Good News Commentary (San Francisco: Harper & Row; London: Marshall Pickering, 1985).

¹⁷ Acts, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986).

¹⁸ Williams, op. cit., p. xxi.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. xxii.

²⁰ Ibid., p. xxix.

²¹ Krodel, op. cit., p. 21.

²² See Jacob Jervell, ‘The Problem of Traditions in Acts’, in his Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), pp. 19–39.

²³ Krodel, op. cit., p. 21.

²⁴ Ibid., pp. 22–23.

²⁵ ibid., pp. 23–24.

²⁶ Ibid., p. 41.

²⁷ Acts of the Apostles, Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress. 1987).

²⁸ See my review below in this Themelios; cf. W. W. Gasque. A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 247–250, 291–295.

²⁹ The Acts of the Apostles [on the Greek text]. 2nd edn (London: Tyndale: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1952); and Commentary on the Book of Acts, New International Commentary on the New Testament = New London Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall. Morgan and Scott. 1952). Both have been reprinted many times and, as indicated above, revised editions are in the press. On Bruce’s work, see my History, pp. 257–264.

³⁰ The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell; Philadelphia: Westminster. 1971). On Haenchen, see Gasque, History, pp. 235–247.